I have not applied for nor received the transcripts for the required court transcripts relating to my cases in the Singapore High Court and the Singapore Subordinate Court in 2008 because you had suddenly changed your mind on December 10, 2009 of permitting a courier to pick them up.

Secondly despite my timely request for these dates to be vacated until I receive the transcripts, you totally ignored my request until today.

Now suddenly you have changed the dates to February, April and May 2010.

None of these dates are suitable.

I first have to receive the transcripts from Singapore and knowing your deliberate attempts in the past to obstruct and prevent my ability to defend these proceedings by your refusal to co-operate, I am quite sure that your High Court and the Subordinate Court will do the same in this case.

In these circumstances, if you want anyone in the free world to take you seriously, you would first wait to set any dates until you hear that I have received these transcripts. After that depending on the volume of the transcripts, I will let you know how much time would be reasonably needed to prepare a response.

Of course in a country such as yours where brutally beating a kid who vandalized some property and hanging teenagers for petty drug offenses is official punishment, including routinely misusing the law through judges like Belinda Ang Saw Ean, you obviously no longer care what other people think. I guess it is sufficient if you and Lee Kuan Yew think you have the "best legal system in the world".

In any case, can I have your answer? Or are you just, like you have done in the recent past, just ignore this Email. But mind you, I am going to post this on my blog.

Letter copied to Lee Kuan Yew's ministers for Law, Home Affairs, and Woon his Attorney General.

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Just after my earlier post, I received yet another Fax from the Singapore Tribunal with new changes.

For one thing, the mysterious Audrey Lim is no longer writing the letters for the Tribunal.

You recall up till now, someone called Audrey Lim, about whom no one has any idea, was the one signing the letters for the Tribunal. A long time ago, I had asked Angela Chopard who this person was. Chopard who claimed to be the Chief of the Tribunal claimed not to know the full name of this person who represents herself as Audrey Lim.

Sometime later, by my own research I discovered there is a ethnic Chinese woman whose name is Lim Yoon cheng Audrey. I then enquired of Chopard if in fact the person who is parading as Audrey Lim is actually Lim Choon Yeng. Chopard's response was that she had no idea one way or the other.

Since there should be no reason why Chopard should want to conceal the identity of an employee of Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, a Lim Yoon Cheng, and since no one appeared to know who Audrey Lim really was, we decided to treat her as an impostor and addressed all my letters to Chopard.

That is up till now.

Today suddenly we receive a fax from the Tribunal but this time it is signed, surprisingly, by Chopard herself but she signs it "for Audrey Lim, Secretary, Disciplinary Tribunal.

As far as I know, it is usually criminals who try to hide their identity by using various aliases and false names. We can reasonably suspect, in these suspicious circumstances that "Audrey Lim" may or may not be "Lim Choon Yeng" and perhaps she has a criminal background and thus a need to conceal her true identity.

We do sympathise her situation but not knowing what she has or has not done, what crime she has committed or not committed, we continue to ignore this person, since after all, Chopard does not know who she is either.

This fax which wee have received dated today is written to 2 people, first Peter Low of Colin Ng and Partners who are the lawyers for the Singapore Law Society and secondly to me.

In this letter they refer to "your Email dated December 16, 2009". Since the letter is addressed to 2 people, it is impossible to tell whether the Tribunal is referring to my Email of this date or whether to Peter Low's Email (which we do not have) of the same date! So much for the common sense of Lee Kuan Yew's first world country of Singapore and their letter writing skills!

The letter goes on to say that in order to give me sufficient time to respond, all dates have been extended. The List of documents is to be submitted by Feb 26, 2010, file Affidavit by April 16, 2010 and the hearing is to be held May 17, 2010 to 21 May 2010.

I hope I have provided sufficient entertainment on the goings on of Lee Kuan Yew's best Legal System in the World, Singapore!

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

The Tribunal still refuses to forward the court transcripts for my Singapore High Court and Singapore Subordinate Court 2008 cases.

They suddenly changed their position on December 10, 2009 and have said they will release them to a courier company but that I have to pay for them.

Since they have changed their position on this, I had on Dec 16, 2009 asked for an extension of time for filing the List of documents due on Jan 7, 2010, and further proceedings and trial dates to be vacated until I receive the transcripts and had time to peruse them.

They have flatly refused to reply to my letter.

They have flatly refused to provide the audio recordings in the Singapore High Court.

The Tribunal earlier simply refused to advise if I have permission to enter Singapore and demanded that I deal with the Immigration and Customs Department in Singapore.

Suddenly they did another U turn. On December 10, 2009 the Tribunal wrote to Marilyn Tan of the Immigration and Customs Department asking them to assist in my application to re-enter Singapore since my deportation from the island. I am, as you know, now banned from entering Singapore.

Up till now there is no news from either the Immigration authorities or the Tribunal on my travel situation. I do not know if I can enter Singapore, whether I will be arrested if I did and confined at government expense in the Changi Prison beside the Singapore Airport.

And all this, according to Lee Kuan Yew is none other than Singapore, the first world paradise in the tropics.

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

1. This list of documents is being filed under protest 2. Since October 8, 2009 the Disciplinary Tribunal had all along refused to provide any court transcripts that I requested namely my Singapore Subordinate Court trial and my Singapore High Court trial in Singapore 2008.3. Since the same date, both the Singapore High Court and the Singapore Subordinate Court had insisted that they will give me the transcripts only if I physically went to Singapore from San Francisco to take them or if I had sent an authorized person in Singapore to take them.4. The Tribunal knew that this was not possible since I do not live in Singapore and neither do I have anyone in Singapore to do it. 5. Suddenly on December 10, 2009, both Singapore High Court and Singapore Subordinate Court wrote to me stating they would be now be prepared to hand the transcripts to an international courier company provided I pay the courier charges. 6. Under the law, the Tribunal remains fully responsible to pay all expenses to forward these documents to me since it is they who have commenced these proceedings as would be the case in any other proceedings. 7. Despite the Tribunal's refusal to abide by internationally accepted procedural norms, I had asked the Tribunal through my letter dated Dec 16, 2009 to vacate the dates for filing of the lists of documents, filing the Affidavits and the trial dates to a further date to enable me to respond to their sudden change of mind on Dec 10, 2009 regarding the transcripts. Additional time would be needed for me to now arrange for a courier, receive the documents, peruse them and file the lists of documents, Affidavit and further proceeding.8. The Tribunal has totally ignored my request. They have not responded.9. The Tribunal appears to pick and chose which letters they would respond and which they will ignore. 10. Upon these facts and under protest, I will be relying on my Singapore High Court Transcripts 2008 (provided I receive them, and provided I have time to peruse them), my Singapore Subordinate Court case 2008 (provided I receive them, and provided I have time to peruse them), all cases against Dr. Chee Soon Juan, all cases against JB Jeyaretnam, all cases of defamation and contempt of court against Dow Jones Publishing and all newspapers and magazines from 1970 up till now, and all cases against opposition politicians, journalists both foreign and Singaporean and any other relevant matter that has any bearing on this case.11. This letter is being copied to Wong Kan Seng, Minister for Home Affairs, K Shanmugam, Law minister and Woon, Attorney General.

Executed under penalty of perjury this 30th day of December 30, 2009 in Fremont , CaliforniaBy me,Gopalan Nair

Monday, December 28, 2009

In my last post I wrote what I thought about Singapore's official state policy of racially discriminating against Malays and Indians who are also full citizens of Singapore just as the Chinese, in housing, jobs and immigration.

All that talk by Singapore's strongman Lee Kuan Yew that the island is a meritocracy and that it treats all persons equally under law is simply so much hogwash. It is not meritocracy that allows an illiterate Chinese man, with no English whatsoever, from Schizuan Province, Communist China, to get permanent residence in Singapore within 2 weeks to work as a waiter in Ah Kong Cantonese Flying Noodle House in Chinatown while a highly educated Malay from Malaysia is refused residence.

This is not meritocracy. This is just plain dishonesty.

By my pointing out this injustice, I am not being a racist. I am merely defending the rights of the Malay and Indian citizens of Singapore, full citizens with equal rights with the Chinese.

And my complaint is not against any Singaporean native Chinese. They are my friends and they will always be, just as the Singapore native Malay and the Singapore native Indian or the Singapore native anyone else.

Please keep that in mind.

My complaint is against this government which gives preferential treatment to the Chinese race in Singapore over and above the equally deserving Malay or Indian. My complaint is against the deliberate racial preference given to the Chinese race from China to populate Singapore over and above other races in Singapore.

And in this call, no honest self respecting Singaporean native Chinese can fault my argument.

Enough damage is already done so far by this government tilting the racial balance of Singapore in the Chinese favor by their bringing in hundreds and thousands of Chinese from Communist China. This has hurt the interests of Singapore citizen Malay and Indian people.

I therefore ask native born Singapore citizens, Chinese Malay and Indian and others, to join together and peacefully protest against this injustice. Demand that this unjust racial discrimination in immigration be stopped forthwith.

Ask that the Singapore government reexamine the qualifications of each immigrant from china and repatriate immediately those who were given unfair preferential treatment to settle in Singapore.

Similarly reexamine all cases of overseas Indians, overseas Malays and people from other countries who were refused admission and that they be allowed permanent residence in meritorious cases.

And stop the racial segregation of Malays and Indians in Singapore Housing and Development Board by allowing anyone to reside in any part of Singapore of his choice.

Chinese Malays and Indians should immediately organize a peaceful protest to demand this. Remember it is your right under the Constitution. Remember only use peaceful methods, no violence please.

I was listening to the band Bob Marley and the Whalers concert on TV. He got it right in his song "Stand up, stand up, stand up for your rights. Don't give up the fight".

Stand up for your rights my friends. Never give up your rights.

Do it now. The true character of Singapore is being destroyed before your very eyes. The future generations of Singapore would hold you liable for standing back and doing nothing, while Singapore is turned into a satellite overseas Communist Chinese city, peopled by Mandarin speaking, democracy lacking Chinese coolies.

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Saturday, December 26, 2009

Singapore according to it's Constitution, which happens to be the supreme law of the land, is supposed to be a democracy which outlaws any form of racial discrimination. Yet Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's strongman who decides everything in that tiny island state blatantly discriminates against the Malays and Indians in the island, Singapore citizens, who are supposed to enjoy equal rights.

And here we are not talking about racial discrimination being carried on under wraps! No, racial discrimination is official policy.

The Housing Development Board is a public housing agency which rents out (since it is leasehold under 100 year leases) tiny apartments to almost all Singaporeans. Almost 90% of Singaporeans have no choice but to live in these cubicles in the land scarce island. Since it caters for almost the entire Singapore population, and as it is a government agency, you would expect such a body not to racially discriminate against the minority races of Malays and Indians.

No you are wrong. Not entirely different from apartheid laws of the the earlier racist South Africa, Malays and Indians are not allowed to live in the places of their choice in these government owned apartments. They are required to live in certain selected areas which are chosen for them or from a list of locations they can choose from. This is blatant racial discrimination in violation of the Constitution. Yet not a single Malay leader or Indian leader has ever spoken against it. In an island engulfed in fear of Lee Kuan Yew and what he will do to you, the minority races have been subdued into silence and quiet acceptance.

In recent years because of the low rates of fertility among all Singaporeans, Lee Kuan Yew has begun to bring in immigrants to populate the island. But there is no fairness in the immigration policy. Totally unskilled and uneducated Chinese who don't speak a word of English are allowed in increased numbers simply because they happen to be Chinese and because the more skilled and educated Chinese would rather prefer to emigrate to the United States. In fact it was recently reported a Chinese language teacher was given permanent residence in 2 months!

Not so with Indians from India. Very few are allowed into Singapore and that too after they have undergone extensive social and personality tests to ensure they are likely to be the compliant sort, which suits Lee Kuan Yew. Lee Kuan Yew does not want Singapore to become an Indian city. So the Indians have to be stopped.

As for Malays, not one is allowed in. Not a single one. Lee Kuan Yew does not want too many Malays in Singapore. As for the existing Malay population, he is already displeased because Malays are having more children that the Chinese. He is trying various ways to stop their increase.

In the article "The Singapore Solution" which appears in the January edition of National Geographic Magazine, he publicly says that "it is a good thing the nation has welcomed so many Chinese immigrants". Mark the words "Chinese immigrants", not just "immigrants".

If any leader of any other country had said this, tomorrow there would have been a million protesters on the streets demanding his resignation.

But not in Singapore where the entire nation has been terrified into silence and acceptance.

Jufrie Mahmood, the committee member in the Singapore Democratic Party is a Malay leader and an old friend of mine. Mind you there is nothing wrong in being a Malay leader just as in the US there is nothing wrong in being a defender of African Americans. This does not in any way dilute your standing as a Singaporean or American leader.

Gandhi Ambalam is an Indian leader also in the Singapore Democratic Party.

I mention these 2 men because at least they have proven themselves to have the courage to stand up to Lee Kuan Yew the Singaporean bully. They are respected men with conviction and ideal.

It is men such as these who should stand up and speak for the Malays and the Indians. It is not a politically unwise thing to do because Malay rights and Indian rights are also at the same time Singaporean rights.

I want to impress upon these men, the need to act, and act now. If they are afraid to do the right thing by publicy speaking up now and taking the relevant action, then who else should the people turn to; since almost everyone else has been numbed into a state of fear induced hibernation, through fear of Lee Kuan Yew.

You can be as afraid as you want, but you are losing your country, your culture and your civilization in the process, beside the obvious fact that such racial discrimination is simply wrong. Period.

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

I wonder what will it be when the 86 year old Lee Kuan Yew, the Singaporean Kim Jong Il dies, since this can happen anytime to any 86 year old man. Lee Kuan Yew is not exempted from death, even if he is Lee Kuan Yew, surely!

With people in Singapore only capable of living under some supreme leader or other, which they have been doing for the last 50 years under this man, will they happily worship a replacement, his son?

Will K Shanmugam, Lee Kuan Yew's Minister for Law smoothly switch from crawling before Lee Kuan Yew to crawling before his son?

Will the Singapore state controlled newspapers seamlessly switch from praising the father to praising the son, the new Messiah?

Will Lee Kuan Yew's judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean only too eager to bend over backwards anytime for the father similarly do it for the son?

Will the Singapore population smoothly shift from worshipping the father to worshipping the son as if nothing happened?

And will Gopalan Nair who is dying for his favorite Indian Banana Leaf curry and a Tiger to chase it down, at the Gandhi Eating House in Chander Road be allowed to land at Changi on the next SQ1 flight? (I mean the airport of course, not the building next to it)!

Or should these minions and lackeys be preparing themselves for a rather unpleasant turn of events?

I am not sure. Only time will tell. But still fascinating, even the thought of the possibilities, don't you think?

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

You may have heard the sad news of the death of Kim Peek, the person behind the character in the movie "Rain Man" played by Dustin Hoffman.

Kim Peek had a brilliant memory in his knowledge of the entire telephone book, all the zip codes in the US, English history, politics, music and everything else.

Yet he was unable to tie his own shoe lace or even put his own clothes on.

A real genius in many ways but lacking in others.

He died on Saturday in Murray, Utah at the age of 58. He is sadly missed.

But his death caused me to think of people with mental disorders. Which brought me to think about Singaporeans. Are Singaporeans a people with a split personality?

And that is in fact what Lee Kuan Yew has made Singaporeans into. A society of people who have to work and think and carry out solutions to problems.

Yet they are forbidden from the basic questions in life, such as, the right to be able to question authority on decisions that have bearing on their lives.

Let us look at this schizophrenic way of life in Singapore. A teacher in a Singapore school tells the children to be honest.

Yet she refuses to teach her children to complain when Lee Kuan Yew is himself dishonest, when he pays himself $3.7 million and several more every year as salary.

The teacher knows that the state unjustly punishes Dr. Chee Soon Juan by jailing him merely because he stood on a street corner and spoke about democracy.

Yet she refuses to tell her students that the state is wrong in their action.

A parent teaches a child to be honest and stand up for truth and justice.

Yet when Lee Kuan Yew sends Dr. Chee to jail unjustly, when Singapore's Minister for Law K Shanmugam makes illegal any form of protest, when the state abuses the law to punish government critics, the same parent tells the child not to complain.

If a psychiatrist were to be given this behavioural pattern and asked to diagnose the Singaporean, very probably the diagnosis would be like that of a schizophrenic, or someone with a serious mental disability.

Someone who has to think in a certain way and have certain value judgements, but yet is prevented from acting in accordance with it.

And this is how the average Singaporeans lives. He thinks in one way but is unable or unwilling to act according to those ideas.

And this form of dual personality, one in his mind and another in his actions, is drilled into his head from childhood and throughout his life.

And it is this lack of a thinking discerning questioning population that will continue to be an obstacle to Singapore's progress.

For a city state such as this, with no natural resources whatsoever, the most important resource available is the people.

Yet Lee Kuan Yew for his own selfish self interest, has deliberately instilled so much fear into his citizens that today they are effectively people going around with a split personality.

One in their minds and the other in their actions.

These people are not ones capable of competing in the world's marketplace of ideas and challenges. Not people capable of great things.

Take Gopalan Nair for instance.

In my case, to take one instance, I found Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean to be completely biased and a simply a representative of Lee Kuan Yew, not a judge, in the defamation trial of Dr. Chee Soon Juan.

So the logical thing to do, as any other normal person would, is to say exactly that; which is, that this judge is biased corrupt and is misusing the law.

But the strange thing is, although everyone else who were at the trial came away with exactly the same opinion as I had, no one else, not a single other Singaporean was willing to publicly say so.

Therefore the question is, am I the only one that is mentally deranged or were the other entire population of Singapore mental defects!

I was of course imprisoned for saying it and the judge who tried my case told me that what I had done was a very serious criminal offense.

I did not think so. But the question is whether the entire Singapore population actually agreed with the judge's observation? Perhaps they did!

And after a while in Singapore, you are not sure whether you are actually in Alice in Wonderland! But since Singapore appears to chugging along for the moment at least, the other 99% of the population in the island perhaps think in this unusual double personality way.

And how do you think these people with a split personalty like this are able to compete in the world's market place of ideas innovation and change, where people are able to think and act without fear? I think not.

And that is why, Singapore is doomed to fail. The reason being it's people lack what it takes.

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Monday, December 21, 2009

I have read more than once that Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew has run out of ideas on what to do with the troublesome Gopalan Nair.

Which naturally gives me a great deal of satisfaction.

The problem with my situation, as far as they are concerned, is this. Singapore Dissident is a blog that can be read by Singaporeans and anyone else in the world. They naturally don't like what I write and they don't want local Singaporeans to read it, because it gives the locals, undesirable ideas, such as opposing the despotic regime.

Let me give you an example. I write in my blog that Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's Minister Mentor is a thief because he pays himself $3.7 million a year and much more secretly. My description of him as a thief is therefore accurate.

Therefore reasonably, I should be able to say this in Singapore or elsewhere in the world.

In Singapore however I cannot say this even if it is true, because there is no rule of law and the dictatorship will have me arrested. So no one in Singapore will dare to say this.

However because I live in California, I can say this with impunity, simply because it is true. And since there is rule of law in America, I do not have to fear arrest.

And this difference in what one can say depending on where one is situated is what makes Lee Kuan Yew and his Singapore lackeys mad.

From California, I not only criticize Lee Kuan Yew and his government as a bunch of thieves, I also call them corrupt and a government that manages to say in power by misusing the law.

And all these are facts.

As it is I am already causing tremendous damage to this dictatorial regime in Singapore. My writings continue to be read in Singapore and people all over the world who have an interest in the country.

So when Singapore puts out a false statement that it has a credible legal system in the island, it will be read together with my reports which refutes such claims as nonsense.

And because there is ample evidence that Singapore misuses the law for it's politcal ends, what I write is more likely to be believed than what they write.

It is impossible to know exactly how much damage it does to Singapore's efforts to hoodwink the the rest of the world and Singaporeans, but no doubt some damage is being done.

I am hoping others in the world who know Singapore would take the effort to say it as it is without fear and better still, when Singaporeans themselves take heart and do it within Singapore, openly criticizing the dictators and their unjust system, not incognito, but openly identifying themselves.

On that day, when that happens, Singapore will finally become free.

As for Gopalan Nair, I hope they will not resort to eliminating me through assassination; because that is all they can do to shut me up.

Short of that happening, Lee Kuan Yew can expect these pages to continue full steam ahead.

And it's unstoppable readership to grow a hundred fold.

And I thank every reader for their support and their work in disseminating it.

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

If you really thought about it, we have to thank Singapore Judge Ch'ng Lye Beng for sending Dr. Chee Soon Juan to jail for a week for distributing a flyer.

What I am trying to do just as everyone else who wants to see democracy in Singapore, is to expose the repressive policies and the abuse of law in Singapore.

And each time Lee Kuan Yew and his minions abuse the constitution, the law and the rights of Singaporeans, the cause of freedom moves ahead one step closer to it's goal, as even more people are reminded yet again how bad it has become.

And now, with this Judge Ch'ng Lye Beng sending Dr. Chee Soon Juan, Gandhi Ambalam and Chee Siok Chin to jail for a week each just for distributing a flyer, this judge has in fact served the cause of freedom in Singapore by demonstrating to the world, yet again that Singapore has no rule of law and the Constitution has no more value than scratch paper.

These are the astonishing facts, (astonishing because no one should ever be arrested let alone convicted on these facts) in this case.

On Sept 06, 2006 outside Raffles City Shopping Center, in downtown Singapore, a few days before the World Bank/ International Monetary Fund Meeting, Dr. Chee Soon Juan, Gandhi and Siok Chin had distributed a leaflet which contained the words "Tired of being voiceless 2nd class citizens in your own country without any rights? Sick of ministers paying themselves millions of dollars while they tell you to keep making sacrifices for Singapore?".

You may not believe this if you are not Singaporean but truly, just for distributing a flyer containing these words to the public, Singapore District Judge Ch'ng Lye Beng on Friday December 18, 2009 in the Subordinate Courts of Singapore, sent these 3 Singaporeans to jail for a week!

Each time a tyrant abuses the law to punish his opponents unjustly, the victim of course suffers harm, but in fact the tyrant hurts himself much more. It is in fact one more nail in his own coffin.

Lee Kuan Yew and his servants and minions can say, as many times as they want, through their state controlled newspapers, lies and half truths that they have rule of law but each time one of his judges does this sort of thing, no one in his right mind can ever believe them! A false judgment such as this proves as plain as daylight that if Singapore has rule of law, then the moon is made of cheese after all!

By helping to expose these injustices, such as, by this judge sending these innocent citizens to jail, he is clearly and categorically confirming yet again that Singapore has no real laws to speak of, its courts are no better than Kangaroo courts and the law is what pleases Lee Kuan Yew at any point of time.

This decision, as with all the other unashamed blatant instances of the abuse of law, will continue to subject the Singapore legal system and it's judges to derision, odium, ridicule and contempt in the eyes of right thinking Singaporeans and will help to hasten the end of this one party dictatorship sooner than we think.

And for that we have to thank Lee Kuan Yew's judge Ch'ng Lye Beng. He is, if you really thought about it, on the side of freedom and the rule of law. He has helped to expose once again the misuse of the law in Singapore. Thank you very much, Ch'ng Lye Beng.

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

THE USE OF "ASIAN VALUES" BY THE SINGAPORE GOVERNMENT, SINGAPORE'S PENAL SYSTEM AND SOCIETY AT LARGE.

The Singapore government likes to use "Asian values" and "Asian culture" to explain the things that are “uniquely Singapore”. Caning, death sentences, police permits for assembly and speech, harsh penal punishment, a parliament that is one party with about 82 out of 84 MPs from the PAP, and the list goes on and on.

Singaporeans are always told that western liberal democracy do not work well in Singapore because we are Asian. And today, I have read online K. Shanmugam said in the newspapers that liberal democracy leads to slower development and a lower quality of life, with more tensions within our society.

The newspapers are state controlled by the way. No wonder the news are always bright and cheery and the only complaints that get published are those about mrt, buses, and all kinds of minor issues. Publishing them allows the newspaper to say "Look we do publish criticism too alright!” In reality, you will never get an article in the newspaper saying that “PAP’s policy on xxxx is a failure and it doesn’t work at all” which the British, Americans and citizens of the free world receive.

Back to K Shanmugam’s point that liberal democracy leads to lower quality of life and slower development.

Well, I guess liberal democracy does indeed lead to lower quality of life and more tension within society. That is why Europe, North America , Australia and New Zealand all have lower quality of life compared to Singapore. It is also true that liberal democracy leads to slower development which explains why many of these countries have GDP per capita (nominal) that are 10k USD or more than Singapore. These countries are all in chaos and their citizens are suffering indeed.

Perverted versions of democracy such as those in Russia, Malaysia and Singapore lead to higher quality of life. People in these countries are living the high life.

It is also apparent that the Americans, Europeans and Australians are all dying to give up their citizenships for a Singaporean one because Singapore's system works so much better, or so we are told by the government.

Oh hang on..... it is actually the other way around. Singaporeans are dying to immigrate into Australia, North America and Europe. These countries have a much higher quality of life and lesser tension within society. At my recent class gathering 4 years ago, I found that 40% of my ex classmates are now living in these countries.

Mr K. Shanmugam goes on to say that only the PAP can deliver good governance.

I have no doubt about that Mr K. Shanmugam. I have learnt over my years in Singapore (when I was still in Singapore) that the PAP are god sent. They are men and women of the highest calibre that cannot be found anywhere else in Singapore or the world.

Mr K. Shanmugam then goes on to mention something about younger voters being more educated and demanding liberal democracy. He then goes on to argue that the best systems are those that fit the society they govern.

Firstly, you either have democracy or you do not. What is democracy if it is not liberal? What in the world is a “closed democracy”? It is not democracy at all. Such democracies are pseudo democracies or hybrid regimes. A hybrid regime is what the Economist classifies Singapore as in its 2008 democracy index survey.

Yes, the younger educated voters will demand democracy. You cannot lie and pull wool over their eyes like you can do with the uneducated voters who can hardly string together a proper sentence in English. The educated voters will be able to discern and make the right decisions. They have seen the world. They know what is right and wrong. They know the best way forward.The question is, can democracy exist in predominantly Chinese societies? Or is the Singapore government right in saying that as Asians, we do not yearn for democracy and democracy cannot work in Asian/Chinese societies, it is our Asian culture.The truth is liberal democracy can exist in predominantly Chinese society.

There are only 4 countries in the world that are predominantly Chinese - China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore.

China is a communistic country, no doubt about it. But look deeper and you would see their citizens are busy immigrating to Europe, North America and even Singapore. I am sure we all have witnessed the growth of the PRC populace in Singapore. Why? They want a better life that is why. They want to enjoy more democracy, more rights. They want to have human dignity.

Hong Kong is now part of China. It is governed under the "one country two systems" rule. Just recently, Hong Kongers took to the streets in hundreds of thousands to march for democracy and universal suffrage. Hong Kongers are especially critical towards interference from the Chinese government in their territory. In 1997, when Hong Kong was to be handed over to communistic China, Hong Kongers were running all over the world desperate to take up a second citizenship before the handover. Hong Kong politicians were practically begging the British to grant them right of abode in the UK so they can escape communist rule. This goes to show how much Hong Kongers value their democracy and rights.

Taiwan has also showed that democracy can function in a majority Chinese society. The Taiwanese are certainly not western, in fact they don’t even speak English at all yet taiwan has a functioning democracy that ranks 33rd in the world. The Taiwanese refuse to rejoin mainland China for this very reason. They would rather risk open war with China than give up their democracy and rights. In Taiwan, there is a healthy functioning liberal democracy. The people have smiles on their faces.

Taiwan has showed that democracy can function in an Asian or Chinese society. The reality in Hong Kong, China and Singapore has showed that Chinese people year to live free. They yearn to have rights and democracy.

Liberal democracy is hardly a western concept like what Singapore's government would have us believe. How do you define western in the first place? To define something as western and eastern is very infantile. Each sovereign country has its own culture and language. Even in western Europe alone, each country has a distinct language and culture. A German can hardly understand a British. An American can hardly understand a Taiwanese. Yet they come together in their respect for human rights and democracy.

Even in the UK, they have had a long history of dictatorship under the monarch. They have had a terrible history of human rights abuses and torture. Not unlike Singapore, they used to hang and cane people in their recent history. But do they sit around and say lets continue such practices because it is part of British culture? No. They look forward, they choose to change for the better. They do not choose to say this is the British way of doing things and we must have such a system (dictatorship, caning, hanging, torture machines, taking children from their parents and sending them to far away places) in place to fit our society.

The same goes for the French, Germans, Taiwanese, Japanese, Australians, and every other enlightened nations in the world. They all had histories of human right abuses and torture. They all chose to change things and not wallow in their close mindedness and say, lets continue on as it is part of our culture.

The Singapore government likes to keep saying that this is our "Asian" culture, hence, we have to avoid liberal democracy. Hence, we cane people and hang people. Hence, we use very harsh punishment even for minor criminal offences.

To understand how ridiculous many of the punishments in Singapore are as compared to international standards, I will compare the punishment for some offences in Singapore against Australia.

Petty drug use - In Singapore it is 9 months jail. In Australia, it is a very small fine.

Drug trafficking - In Singapore it is the death penalty. In Australia, it is 6-9 years jail.

Overstaying your work visa for 3 months - In Singapore you will be jailed and caned. Permanent scars will be left on your buttocks. In Australia, they won't even jail you. They will just invite you for a chat and book you on the next plane home.

Almost every punishment in Singapore is manifestly excessive by international standards to be honest. The punishments DO NOT fit the crimes. Why? Because Singaporean's have no or little individual rights. That is the truth.

Or if you choose to believe the government, it is due to "Asian values". No doubt, there are plenty more perverted explanations the government can come up with to pull the wool over your eyes.

So is the Singapore government really a fervent believer in "Asian values" as they would have us believe?

Asian values dictate that you serve public office without wishing for extreme riches, you serve because you want to better society and your country. These are the teachings of Confucius and many Chinese heroes, "Yue Fei" being one of them.

If our MPs truly believe in their own trumpeted version of "Asian values", why do they raise their salaries into the highest in the world then? The Top 30 highest paid politicians in the world are all from Singapore!

A friend of mine once joked that Chen Shui Bian of Taiwan should not have embezzled 15 million USD. He should have taken a leaf out of Singapore's book and raised his own salary legally to 3 million USD a year by passing a bill in parliament. Within 5 years, he would have 15 million USD in bank.

Why does the Singapore government honour dictators like "Prime Minister" Thein Sein of Myanmar who plunder and murder their own people by naming flowers after them? (Dendrobium Thein Sein).

In Singapore, the teenage vandal gets caned and jailed while a dictator who subverted the will of democracy in his own country and abused human rights has a flower named after him along with the whole suite of VIP treatment. What a joke.

I can understand a government playing host to Myammese dictators to facilitate talks to advance human rights and help the people of Myanmar. But when a government names flowers in honour of dictators, it disgusts me to no end.

In all other developed countries such as America, Canada, UK, their cabinet ministers have no problem commanding million dollar salaries in the private sector too. But they do not demand million dollar wages as MPs. Why? Because they know it is public service, the spirit is in serving the taxpayers and country, not the tax payers and country serving them.

Also, unlike private sector jobs where you can be sacked at an instant, MPs have security of tenure for half a decade. The fame gained in public service would also provide many lucrative opportunities once one retire from public service. It would be ridiculous to peg public sector MP wages to private sector.

"Asian values" are used by Singapore government when it is convenient and when it advances their agenda. "Asian values" are thrown out the window when it is does not advance their agenda.

I am Chinese too. The Chinese certainly did not invent paper by insisting that their culture is to use stones. The Chinese also did not invent cannons and gunpowder by insisting that their culture is to use wooden arrows.

The bottom line is this - Every improvement in society and science is made by looking forward and not backwards. Yet the Singapore government continues to look backwards and say that “Asian values” dictates Singapore cannot do this or that.

Singapore has shown that the government can build an elaborate system that claims to be "democratic", yet go against the spirit of democracy by utilising their grip on parliament to amend the constitution and pass numerous laws to severely maim the practice of democracy in reality.

This is the main reason why a multi party parliament and democracy must exist in Singapore.

Democracy exists in Taiwan, that is the reason why Chen Shui Bian couldn’t legally raise his wages to 3 million USD a year even if he wanted to. The parliament in Taiwan, being democratic and multi party would certainly have not accepted such a ridiculous preposition.

When Singapore mentions the words "Asian values" you better run and hide because it is most likely bad news for you. Most of the time, "Asian values" has become nothing more than a code word to take away the citizens' rights and dignity.

Friday, December 18, 2009

You would expect any government to see to it, their leaders are seen to be men of integrity. That is provided of course that it needs the support of it's people.

Not so in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore. They don't need your support. What they need is your obedience, your fear of them, which they ensure by force; just as you will expect from a military government during wartime; and that my friend is present day Singapore.

Take Lee Kuan Yew, the Singapore strongman. Does he care what people think when he pays himself $3.7 million a year and a lot more secretly? And what sort of a role model is that for a leader of a country, who is seen no better than a thief!

Take his controlling every newspaper in the country. What is he, a leader of a democratic country or is he a fascist? Does he care what people think? Not one bit!

Take his handpicked Tamil Indian Minister for Law K Shanmugam. Does he care that people think of him no better than a errand boy for the predominantly Chinese government in Singapore; being selected as a show piece for the Indian Singapore community as an example of Lee Kuan Yew's racial fair mindedness! Recall Tariq Aziz, the former foreign minister, a Catholic in Sadam Hussein's government of Iraq, a member of a community whom he would have normally eliminated in ethnic cleansing.

Take his judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean who is shamelessly willing to send Dr. Chee Soon Juan to prison and abuse the law to bankrupt him with monstrous damage awards merely because he criticized her master Lee Kuan Yew and his son. Is this the sort of role model for a judge in Singapore, a woman without any scruples or shame whatsoever, who would be prepared shamelessly to "prostitute her position as a judge for personal gain".

Take the journalists who work for the state controlled press in Singapore who daily write propaganda in praise of Lee Kuan Yew and his government while denying any right of reply or publicity for the ideas of those in opposition? Are these the sort of journalists that are the role models for men and women aspiring to careers in journalism?

Take the average Singaporean father and mother. What sort of people are they? Simply cowards. Their standard advice to their children is better to live like a coward in fear of Lee Kuan Yew, than to stand your ground on principle, integrity and conviction. These children quietly go about their lives in Singapore totally indifferent to whatever goes round about them that affect their lives. What sort of cowards are these. The children of these Singapore parents?

They are a bunch of cowardly yes men and women without any integrity or courage whatsoever. A bunch of bums. The lot of them.

But there are a few and a growing number who are different. Lee Kuan Yew and his fascist government misunderstand Singaporeans. They are all not as helpless or ignorant as you think. Those who have the knowledge of this abuse and the education to go with it, are simply withdrawing cooperation to such a government.

They are resigning from government positions. More and more of the young refuse to enter government service for the shame and lack of any integrity that goes with the job.

With my writing and that of others, a growing number of Singaporeans are beginning to realize that doing nothing is not an option but a recipe for disaster. And they are beginning to realize that it is shameful to live in bondage and what is more, there is no need to live like that.

Singaporeans are also keenly aware that the 86 year old bully Lee Kuan Yew has to weaken and die, if not today, at least tomorrow. So they are beginning to realize that something has to be done, and they are beginning to do it.

I have received information that young students have made copies of these blog postings and have begun to distribute them at street corners such as Orchard Road. Many have been actively and continually distributing information about this blog Singapore Dissident to their friends and thereby increasing the readership. All these are good signs which can only mean a change for the better.

So don't let up, expose these crooks, because that is exactly what they are.

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

I was checking on the famous quotation by former Czechoslovakia Foreign Minister Jan Masaryk " Dictators are rulers who always look good until the last 10 minutes". And how right he is. He must have had a prescience of Singapore when he made the quote in 1940s Prague, Czechoslovakia.

Singapore, just like the countries under the former Iron Curtain have one essential tool to keep looking good. Yes, the state controlled newspapers.

And today the Singapore press just as the state controlled newspapers of former Roumania, Russia, and East Germany churns out the daily dose of good news without fail. We are good. We are fine. Business is up. Profits are up. People are happier. They have more shoes and ad nauseam.

But is it really? Or is it the end?

I was there in Singapore under my forced confinement in the city state of Singapore for 6 months for criticizing a now internationally notorious Singapore judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean. And this is what I see.

The people have been effectively silenced. They are unhappy being literally slaves in the island with no political rights at all.

As a result they are ashamed of themselves. They lament their inability to live as the free men and women of the west. They admire the Americans, the Australians, the West. They admire the spontaneity of an Australian. They admire the courage they have to speak freely. They cannot speak freely fearing arrest. They cannot complain fearing arrest. They cannot protest fearing arrest. They cannot challenge government decisions fearing arrest. They are consumed daily in fear. Fear of what might befall them if they were out of line.

As a result many educated Singaporeans leave the island permanently. Those remaining in Singapore are guilt ridden in government jobs for having to do Lee Kuan Yew's dirty work such as arresting and imprisoning government critics.

Singapore's judges are guilt ridden for having to send innocent Singaporeans to jail like myself and Dr. Chee Soon Juan to please their strongman Lee Kuan Yew.

Many follow their conscience and resign from government jobs. The government finds it hard to recruit young graduates to serve in government as it is seen as a dirty job to punish their innocent fellow Singaporeans for incorrect political thoughts.

Let me give you an example. The rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police is senior, equivalent to that of a Captain or Major in the Army or Squadron Leader in the Air Force. Yet it appeared comical that Abdul Razak bin Zakaria, a Malay Singaporean holding this rank, who had arrested me, did not appear to know the expression "going through it with a fine tooth comb" when he was being cross examined by me in the High Court! He asked the judge what a comb had to do with the charge against me of insulting Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean! A very simple commonly used English expression!

Second. During my trial in Singapore for allegedly yelling at Singapore police officers, a senior inspector of police did not appear to understand what I meant when I said "it is a figment of your imagination". He asked the judge what a "figment" was!

A senior police photographer giving evidence at this trial did not know what a "junction" was! He knew almost no English!

What this means is this. The Singapore Police Force is simply finding it difficult to attract qualified recruits. Singaporeans know the extent of dirty work they have to do by arresting innocent people to please Lee Kuan Yew. So they refuse to join the police force which is now thoroughly discredited and lost all respect.

To retain the numbers, the government had tried to get Malaysian Chinese to join it, but this supply too is running out, since they too now realize how dishonest the Singapore Police Force has become.

Since English language is unfortunately required for a Singapore policeman, it is not possible to teach a few words of English to a Chinese immigrant from mainland China and make him a Superintendent of Police the next day.

So, with no other option left, they are merely giving jobs to thoroughly unqualified men such as this Malay officer Abdul Razak bin Zakaria. He did not appear to understand basic English, the fundamentals of policing or the laws or the Constitution of Singapore. All he knew was to go out and arrest anyone he was ordered to, take their confessions and send them to jail. It is to him, no more than a mechanical exercise.

The fact today, which the state controlled newspapers will not tell you is this. There are no qualified new entrants for the government service. Those in it are leaving as fast as they can. The only way this government continues is through injecting more and more unskilled foreigners who hardly know any English and local Singaporeans who are thoroughly unqualified.

There are of course the likes of Singapore's Law Minister K Shanmugam who stays, but he does it only for money. He will say anything that pleases his master Lee Kuan Yew as long as that means he continues to collect his millions. Just as Belinda Ang Saw Ean, the judge, who will tailor the law skillfully to the desires of her same master Lee Kuan Yew.

At present, just as Jan Masarky said, it looks good. And it will look good till the last 10 minutes. And then it will be the end.

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

It does not take very much to bring about democratic change in Singapore Island.

The government has completely lost all moral authority to govern. The Singapore courts have been thoroughly discredited through their use to destroy political opposition, such as JB Jeyaretnam, Dr. Chee Soon Juan, Chia Thye Poh and the list goes on. And myself.

The Ministers are now seen as downright crooks paying themselves millions of dollars which they conveniently call salary and which anyone else would simply call "theft".

The Constitution of Singapore is discredited and made a mockery of with no freedoms whatsoever to speak of, no free speech, expression, assembly, nothing.

There is not a single independent newspaper in the entire island, with the state not only owning but also controlling them. Another word for this is propaganda.

Very soon I will be disbarred as a lawyer in Singapore, which gives another opportunity for me to expose their abusing the law.

And I can go on.

What is needed for Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore castle of cards to topple is a few people coming out and saying exactly that which is staring them in their faces. Dr. Chee and JB Jeyaretnam has suffered for saying this. I have. Numerous other people have suffered for standing up to the despotic regime.

But keep this in mind. None of the work they have done has been in vain. By each of us speaking up, even if we were punished, this administration suffers much more.

As they continue to abuse the rights of Singaporeans who dare to stand up, they alienate even more Singaporeans against them.

That is why my imprisonment in Singapore has not been in vain. None of the work of the others who have stood up to this tyranny has been in vain.

I ask Singaporeans, especially the students to have the courage to stand up and just speak the truth. Have the courage to tell Lee Kuan Yew and his ministers that they are thieves, because that is what they are. Have the courage to tell the Minister of Law that he is not fooling anyone when he disallows even a one person peaceful protest.

And last but not least, have the courage to do it openly. Identify yourselves, not hide under pseudonyms or false identities. Have the courage to tell your friends to do it. Have the courage to organize into groups of democracy activists.

Singapore is a small island. It only takes a few to act as the catalyst for the movement to roll.

Today in Copenhagen many young people are protesting for a greener Mother Earth. They have a passion, conviction and God given courage. Why do you need to live in fear? Why are you different from the brave young men and women in Copenhagen?

Lee Kuan Yew is terrified of you now. He had never imagined the impact of the Internet and the greater independence that education gives the younger generation. Now he is clearly in the defensive because his actions are now spelt out for the judgment of the entire world. He cannot deal with this new world of Singaporeans.

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Below is an Email that I have sent to the Tribunal, Ministers Wong Kan Seng and K Shanmugam and Attorney General Woon.

For the first time, I received a fax from the High Court and the Subordinate Court that they are prepared to hand over the requested court transcripts "to a courier company". Previously they said no such thing.

I get the impression that they are feeling the heat. I had complained to the Ministers and the Attorney General that they are looking very small now by demanding that I go to Singapore to collect these items or to send someone there, both of which options they know is impossible since I live in California.

Since they have now changed their minds, it is essential that I at least have sight of this evidence before I file my list of documents and Affidavit. Damage has already been caused to my case by my not having this at the time of filing my defense, which I have done.

Let us see now whether they would give me the additional time for preparation, since it is they, not I, who has caused this difficulty by their refusal earlier to see reason and comply with their legal duty.

It has to be stressed that I am doing this under protest. Any jurisdiction worth it's salt in quasi criminal and administrative proceedings such as this would do this at their expense. They would not be expecting the defendant to bear such costs.

Second, I hope that the Ministers in Singapore would advice the Singapore Disciplinary Tribunal that they would look very small if they do not provide the audio recording in the High Court which is available to every other Defendant. What are they afraid of? That I would post it online?

This regards the court transcripts and audio recordings that I requested that is an essential part of discovery for my defense. So far you have refused to provide any of this. As for the court transcripts of both the High Court and Subordinate Court matters you had demanded that 'I come to Singapore to collect it personally" or "I send someone there to collect it for me". Since it is plain that I cannot come to Singapore, my coming there was not possible. Second, since I have no one in Singapore, noone can collect it for me short of being far too expensive.

Although it is your duty all along to provide these documents, at your cost, as in any trial against the Defendant, you have refused to abide by your duty in the law of discovery. It can only seem that you want to make it as difficult as possible for me to defend these charges, which is not suprising, given their nature.

All of a sudden, on Dec 10, 2009 I received a fax from the High Court and a similar fax from the Subordinate Court of the same date which says that "I could arrange for a courier company to collect them and forward them to me".

This is an entirely new development. Had I been told that I could get a courier to pick it up, perhaps I would have done this, although it is your responsibility to send these things to me at your cost. Not mine.

Now since you are saying this for the first time, and since I need these transcripts and the audio for me to properly file my Affidavit, please vacate all future dates of Jan 07, 2010 for filing lists of documents, Feb 05, 2010 for filing the Affidavit and the trial dates in March 2010. This is to enable me to now make arrangements to get a courier who will do this, to receive the documents,forward them, and I peruse them and to file the necesary documents thereafter in good time.

In the meantime please be reminded that I have also requested the audio recordings in the High Court. You have flatly refused it. You are required also to provide it. It is essential evidence.

This Email is also being sent to Wong Kan Seng, Minister Home Affairs, K Shanmugam, Law Minister and Walter Woon Singapore Attorney General as it appears that this has resulted in Singapore Disciplinary Tribunal's willingness to provide the transcripts through a courier whereas in the past they were not interested in providing anything.

This is being posted on my blog Singapore Dissident. For the reader who is new to this case, kindly read my earlier posts.

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Lee Kuan Yew and his bully boys now finds themselves inextricably in a pickle.

Whichever way they turn, they simply cannot escape the consequences of their reputation being lowered a mile lower to the depths of Burma and North Korea, by my impending disbarment from practicing law in Singapore.

Regardless of how bad or good I am, Singapore has, you will agree, to disbar me from the Rolls of Lawyers there.

It is part of their regular practice, of sending a signal to all other lawyers that they should obey their Singaporean masters.

Also they cannot ever say I am not guilty since this will inevitably send another signal to Singaporeans lawyers that it is OK to openly criticize the government and their judiciary.

The third signal they have to send to all Singaporeans is not to become meddlesome like Gopalan Nair. Therefore my disbarment is a forgone conclusion, you can take that as a fact.

But now for the first time, I am going to put all this on the Internet.

Singaporeans as well as everyone else are going to read why I was disbarred, and in this situation, they will have a very hard time justifying it.

Therefore, the predictable result is the exposure, yet again, of the abuse of the rule of law in the island by the rulers to further their political ends.

This is what I have been trying to prove all along, and the Singapore Law Society advised by the Lee Kuan Yew and his minions are helping me to do exactly that.

Now look at the convictions and my record and ask yourselves whether this is the sort of person who should be disbarred.

Present Charges:

Charge 1 and 2: A false accusation that in Little India, Singapore, I shouted abuses at police officers, knocked on police cars and behaved disorderly by waving my arms and shouting.

This is entirely false and the evidence at the trial clearly proved my innocence.

Entirely for the sake of argument, even if I did what they say, which is denied, is a lawyer to be disbarred for this? I think not.

Charge 3. I was convicted of criticizing Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean in my blog after I had observed her trial in Singapore in the Lee Kuan Yew vs Dr. Chee case.

The judge's behaviour is set out in my blog post of May 29, 2009 where the various instances of bias on her part have been set out.

I had also said in the same blog post that "Belinda Ang had prostituted herself in her position as a judge in that case by behaving as nothing more than an employee of Lee Kuan Yew to do his bidding".

The word "prostituting" means in Websters and all other dictionaries to mean abusing one's authority or profession for personal gain or a dishonest purpose.

This was exactly what she was shamefully doing.

The description of this woman was correct.

Is it fair to disbar Gopalan Nair for correctly describing this woman's conduct during the trial?

Charge 4. Writing similar language about Judge Judith Prakash for sending 3 young men to jail terms for contempt of court merely for wearing T shirts with a picture of a Kangaroo in judicial robes within the courts precincts but not within any particular court.

There was no contempt of any court at all under the constitution or under the laws of contempt.

Should I be disbarred for writing a factually and legally correct observation of her abuse of the law as a judge?

Charge 5: While I was in jail, new charges of contempt of court were brought for my having made such statements as " I have no confidence that I will receive justice in this court" during my earlier trial for the false charge of shouting abuses at police officers (an accusation which I totally deny).

Should I be disbarred from the Singapore Law Society for saying something that I honestly believed in?

I apologized to the judge and promised not to write anything critical of the Singapore government and their judges as was requested by the prosecutor.

I also agreed to delete a few blog posts.

The prosecutor had indicated that if I did this, he will not ask that my detention be extended.

In order to get out of prison, I apologized and promised to do what they wanted.

Since my return to California, I withdrew the apology given and put up the offending blog posts and have continued to criticize the Lee Kuan Yew government their minions and their ever willing judiciary.

I see nothing wrong in that. Should I be disbarred for that?

Previous instances:

1. I was suspended for 2 years merely for publicizing correspondence between myself and the former Attorney General of Singapore about a matter of public interest and controversy.

I also accused him of not telling the truth.

Is this a sign of bad character or that of an upright citizen who cares for the interest of Singapore and the reputation of their legal system?

2. I was fined $8,000.00 for making an election rally speech in Bukit Merah in 1991 promising to change the system of appointment of Subordinate Court judges from the then system under the Legal Service Commission.

Is there any impropriety in that? And is this a sign of bad character or a sign of commendable and honorable conduct?

The reader is asked to read my earlier posts for details of these cases.

The plight of the Singapore Law Society carrying out the government's orders: Their difficulty is this.

They will have to provide precedents and authority why a person such as myself deserves to be disbarred.

This is where they are going to be in an inescapable rut.

It is going to be impossible to justify my disbarment based on any similar authority.

Their past practice of using totally irrelevant cases which had no nexus whatsoever to the case at hand can no longer work now.

With the Internet through this blog, their arguments are going to be exposed for what they are worth.

So come on, you bullies. I am ready for a challenge.

Let us see who is going to win this contest before the judge and juries made up of the entire world, not just the Lee Kuan Yew lackeys in Singapore!

Of course, I don't think I would have found myself in this much trouble in Singapore had I not been a member of the opposition since 1984 and ever since then been a unwavering critic of Singapore's bully boys. Do you?

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Please refer to your Email dated Dec 7, 2009 and Dec 09, 2009. You claim that I had not informed you of the dates available for me to attend in Singapore for the disciplinary hearing.

You are wrong. I did inform you that the March dates were fine. Please refer to my Defense Para 80, which was Emailed to you, executed Nov 30, 2009 in Fremont California, Email date Dec 1, 2009.

For your information, which should be your problem in the first place, the Singapore Immigration Customs Authority has not replied on my application to travel to Singapore and neither have you addressed the other issues relating to my proposed travel to your island.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

The legal profession in Singapore, up till now, has been effectively muzzled. Lee has not unexpectedly found the lawyers to be his greatest fear. He knows it was the lawyers who were the troublemakers for the British colonials, just like him. Ever since then, with million dollar salaried compliant judges and Attorney Generals, with some help through Singapore's detention without trial laws and defamation lawsuits, the lawyers are effectively castrated.

You see, there is a sense of helplessness among Singapore lawyers. They realize there is nothing they can do. And since half a loaf is better than none, even if they scrape out a living, their aspirations and dreams remain at that level, not more. Their life becomes a mere mundane fight for daily survival. A few with connections do well, as long as Lee Kuan Yew and his friends look favorably to them.

There are no clubs and societies which they attend to discuss rights, discuss freedoms, discuss change, and discuss what next. If you happened to be that way inclined in Singapore, you would be looked upon as weird and funny. Singapore lawyers don't talk about such things. They just do their job and tend to their families. You may say it is a boring life, and you are right. The only ones with exciting lives are Lee Kuan Yew and his friends at the top.

They no longer desire greater things. Such as the demand for freedom. The right to question authority. To demand change.

Somehow in Singapore such things are left to the professionals, that is Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP. Thinking about changes to their lives, national policy and so on, is left has to be left to professional politicians. Unless they are in agreement with the policies, they have no right do such things as question authority. If you did, you will be in trouble.

Since nobody wants trouble life becomes very simple. Go to work, do you job well and Lee Kuan Yew and his smart friends will do the necessary for you. If you feel you want to participate in the general consensus of Lee Kuan Yew's thinking group, then join them, and if they accept you, you too can be a politician, that is politician Singapore style.

From then on what you say will be printed in the sate controlled newspapers and your day job will be thinking out what is good for Singaporeans and that includes lawyers.

Thank God that is not the case with everyone. There is a growing number, granted a small one, that are beginning to think otherwise. In other words, the brainwashing has not been entirely complete with them. These are the younger people especially students who feel that they too have rights, just like a young Australian, or Canadian.

These are the ones who can bring about change. What I hope for is is a demanding citizenry, even a small number to start with. Even though it may be small it can bring about change for certain.

Singaporeans have been with 4 decades of brainwashing turned into people with a group mentality. In the Singapore the legal profession about which I have experience, the general philosophy is to secure a living. Get as many cases as you can, argue them according to the laws that exist, regardless of whether you think they are just or no. But on the other hand, if a few were to stand out and protest in the streets about whatever issue, and if such a protest culture takes root, then the others too like sheep will follow. That is why all you need is a few to bring about real change in Singapore.

Such people do exist in Singapore and what is more they are growing. Those who have been subject to such mind control for years such as the lawyers in their 50s for instance, will take longer to change. But with a growing number of younger people with the necessary civic consciousness and pride, I think will see the country through to change.

Singapore cannot change through the ballot box. That is sure. But it will with a few who have the courage to publicly stand out and say "no" the these unjust laws and despotic rule. Then everything will come around because the others like sheep will begin to sing the same song.

That is why I have hope. That is why each of us, who do whatever we do, should not be discouraged for the moment. There is a light if you look hard enough over there.

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

1. The subject is the disciplinary proceedings brought against me by the Law Society of Singapore.

2. I am sure you are aware of this, but in any case, it is necessary to make this public and to demand an explanation.

3. There are 5 charges brought against me, 2 of them involving my conviction in Singapore ’s courts, namely one in the High Court for criticizing your Singapore judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean and another involving a disorderly conduct case/ insulting a police officer case in the Subordinate Court which resulted in convictions. For these 2 charges, the convictions form the basis of the disciplinary proceedings.

4. It is open to any Defendant in these proceedings to challenge the convictions themselves as a defense to these charges. In this case, with the appalling reputation of your courts being ordinarily used as a tool to destroy political opposition and government critics, and since these 2 convictions arose out of such misuse of the law, it is absolutely essential that I be provided with the transcripts and audio recordings (High Court) to prepare my defense.

5. I had written several Emails to the Disciplinary Tribunal asking that I be provided with these essential documents. Initially the Tribunal Head, Angela Chopard through someone called Audrey Lim whom no one knows, replied and said repeatedly that they are not required to provide anything and if I needed anything, I should write directly to the relevant authorities, in this case the courts.

6. Since she was not prepared to do anything, I had no choice but to write to the courts myself. I had written to the High Court asking for the court testimony transcripts and testimony audio recordings in my case there and to the Subordinate court for the testimony transcripts (Subordinate Courts do not record audio recordings).

7. Both the courts have in effect refused to provide anything at all.

8. On Nov 11, 2009, Jasmine Ong (Ms), acting fro Registrar Supreme Court writes "We refer to our earlier letter of Oct 30, 2009, informing you that a copy of the transcripts for the criminal case No 23 of 2008 will be provided to you at no charge............ Please make arrangements for an authorized person to collect the transcripts on your behalf". In other words, I or someone else has to go there physically.

9. We have had a similar letter from the Subordinate Courts telling me to go to Singapore to pick up the testimony court transcripts or to send an authorized representative to go to Singapore to pick it up.

10. As you are aware I live in California and not in Singapore . Secondly I have no one in Singapore to pick it up.

11. One more puzzling fact is this. Earlier the Tribunal itself in their letter dated Nov 4, 2009 again demands this. They say "The Disciplinary Tribunal also notes that the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts have acceded to the Respondents requests and made available the transcripts of the relevant court proceedings to the Respondent (subject to the Respondent or an authorized person collecting the transcripts).

12. This response from the tribunal is bewildering. Why in Heaven’s should someone go there personally for this! I then wrote to both the courts with copies sent to the tribunal, in my Email dated Nov 6, 2009, asking for the transcripts to be mailed to me in California . They have simply ignored my request.

13. You will appreciate that it takes no great effort for both courts to send the transcripts and the audio recordings (in the case of the High Court) to me in California . This is crucial evidence that a Defendant is entitled to rely on his defense.

14. It would be a waste of my time to tell the Minister for Law and the Attorney General what the law is, but let me say this again for the public and Singaporeans.

15. In these proceedings just as in criminal proceedings, it is necessary not only to appraise the Defendant of the charges against him but also provide him with not only incriminating evidence but any exculpatory evidence or any other relevant evidence which he needs. And what is more the Tribunal has to do it without my asking.

16. In this case right form the very start, the Tribunal has failed in their duty. First except for the sending me charges and asking for my lawyer's name, which I have none, they did not provide anything else. Yet, for instance, their charges and notices refer to rules and statutes that they intend to rely on, which they totally fail to provide.

17. And then after my reminding them of this, they sent me a copy of the rules but nothing else.

18. Now, I have had no choice to file my defense (which I did) without the benefit of any of the testimony court transcripts of the court hearings nor the audio recordings. This has caused me undue prejudice.

19. Now about my travel to Singapore .

20. You would agree I hope that a Defendant has a right to defend himself in court. The court dates have been fixed either for February or March next year. As you are aware, I am prohibited from re-entering Singapore unless I have written permission as per your government order last year after my deportation from your island.

21. I had written to your Tribunal whose responsibility it is to arrange these things, but not surprisingly, yet again, they said they are not interested and that I should write to Singapore Immigration myself. So I did this on Nov 11, 2009 and received a response from them dated the same day saying merely "the matter is receiving attention and we will reply to you in due course". Up till now they have said nothing more.

22. Your Law Society of Singapore, is clearly flouting the basic rules of natural justice. Anyone reading this can see that you are deliberately denying me a fair chance to defend myself.

23. This is not looking good yet again on your claim that you have a first class legal system with the rule of law. This is not the rule of law.

24. In the past, without the benefit of the Internet and with a Defendant helpless in your island, you could get away with any injustice as you want. This time, what you do is being watched by quite a few.

25. I suggest you instruct your Law Society that this will not do. Instruct them to send the transcripts and audio recordings to me as they should and demand an explanation form them why they are deliberately refusing me a chance to defend myself. And with it, provide a sufficient time thereafter to file proper defense.

26. Also demand that they respond as they should to my Singapore travel request. And tell them the general duties of a Disciplinary Tribunal.

27. If you do not do this, once again, your claim to be a first rate legal system would sound familiarly hollow. This, if I may say, is not even third class.

27. I will be posting this on my blog Singapore Dissident and every subsequent development.

1. On Nov 6, 2009 we received a letter from Disciplinary Tibunals Singapore stating that "the ICA has stated that you are required to apply for permission to enter Signapore if you want to re-enter Signapore".

2. We refer to our letter to you dated Nov 11, 2009 applying for permission to enter Singapore for the trial of the Disciplinary Proceedings by the Law Society against me, and your letter dated Nov 13, 2003 where you state as follws: "Please refer to your Email dated 11/11/2009. The matter is receiving our attention and we will reply to you in due course"

3. Please note that we also require a gaurantee from you and your government that I will be given safe passage into and out of Singapore, that I will not be arrested or harmed while in Singapore and that I will be paid for my passage to and from Singapore as well as board and lodging expenses while in Singapore.

4. We have not received any reply from you yet.

3. Please let us know without any further delay whether I am allowed to re-enter Singapore.

4. This Email is also being posted on my blog Singapore Dissident "singaporedissident.blogspot.com"

1. Para 78, page 8 of the Email at line 8 to read "But since my return to the US, I naturally withdrew any apology made since I had no intention of keeping it anyway..................................Queenstown Jail" not " I had intention of keeping".

This Defense of mine against these disciplinary proceedings by the Singapore Law Society is intended not only as a Defense to these proceedings but also to make known to the public at large as to what is happening; and who am I.

General background

1. I was born in Singapore , and lived with my parents and brothers and sisters there.

2. I was educated in Winstedt School 2, in Newton district of Singapore, then Raffles Institution, after which I went first to Frankfurt , Germany where I spent about 6 months working there. I was what in German one would say, Shwartzarbeiter (or in English "Black work"), meaning I was working without proper work papers. In other words, I was working illegally. I was then 23 years of age. This was an adventure.

3. Although I did not know a word of German before landing in Germany , I picked it up fast and by the time I left Germany , I was reasonably proficient. An interesting fact is that all European languages are connected and have similarities. If you knew English, German is easy to pick up.

4. My plan as the 20 year old young man was to go to Germany , earn enough money and then on to University of New Brunswick , Canada where I had admission to Matriculation and a Bachelor's course in Commerce. My only way to get to Canada was to earn enough money to do it, and Germany was my plan.

5. However in Germany , I was not making enough money let alone to save. I was earning DM800.00 per month in a shop selling general goods and my rent was DM 400.00 living at student accommodation at Wolfgang Goethe Universitat (University) in Holderlin Strasse 4, Frankfurt (near the Zoo).

6. I had earlier been denied a student visa by the British High Commission Singapore, to go to England to study since my late mother was at that time living in England. They felt that if they gave me a visa, I will not return to Singapore . Hence the visa denial.

7. Now since my Canadian hopes were dashed for lack of any money, and since I did not want to go back to Singapore , I tried to get to England from Germany .

8. I told my mother of my presence in Germany and asked them to help. My mother and sister appealed against the British High Commission's decision, which appeal was heard at Leeds Yorkshire England .

9. I won the appeal. I got my student visa issued at the British Consulate Frankfurt am Main, Bockenheimer Landstrasse, Frankfurt . I purchased a railway ticket from Frankfurt to London , on the Transalpino Express, originating Vienna Austria through the Austrian Alps and crossing into Germany into Munich and on to Frankfurt .

10. I boarded the train at 6 am in the morning at Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof (Main Railway Station), passing through Mainz, Koblenz, Bonn, Cologne and then into Belgium, Viviars, Liege, Brussels, Ghent St Peters, and then on to Ostend (Flanders, Belgium). At Ostend catch a ferry across the Channel, 4 hours, on to Dover Folkstone and there board British Rail to London Victoria, then to London Kings Cross, the train passing through Huntingdon, Peterborough, Doncaster, Wakefield Westgate, then Leeds; then on to Bradford, Yorkshire where my journey ends.

11. I spent 2 years studying my A levels in Bradford Technical College and then on to Hull University East Yorkshire, to study law and then one year at London doing my Bar Finals, at which time my education in England is over. I was admitted to the English Bar, Inner Temple , being placed 14th in order of merit in the 1979 English Bar Finals, out of a batch of one to 200 students. An achievement to be proud of.

12. I return to Singapore at the end of 1979 around December to start my career as a lawyer. I did not know what Singapore was and how corrupt the legal administration was. I did not know that Singapore was not a democracy and was in fact a dictatorship. I did not know that Singapore was a dictatorship; it’s dictator was in fact Lee Kuan Yew and that it was he who controlled every aspect of government in Singapore as well as the courts, the judges, the Law Society and the legal profession.

13. I was under the mistaken impression that one could in Singapore , like in any democracy, work hard at the law and succeed at it. I did not know that success at the Bar in Singapore required most importantly your loyalty to Lee Kuan Yew's People's Action Party and his patronage and support. If you have that, your success in Singapore as a lawyer is guaranteed. But in order to be so, you have to support Lee Kuan Yew's denial of the fundamental rights of his people, such as freedom of the press, and speech. You have to support his suppression of every form of criticism or dissent against him. In other words, you have to espouse the principles of Fascism, with Lee Kuan Yew as the Singaporean Fuhrer (the protector in German, referring to Adolf Hitler), or the Singaporean Ill Duce (the leader in Italian referring to the Fascist Italian Benito Mussolini).

14. After completing a short pupilage first with the late Harry Wee, then with Allen and Gledhill, then with Godwin and Partners, I was admitted to the Bar. This was in 1982.

15. I first got a job with Law firm Advani Hoo Morris and Kumar, then with Amarjit Rubin then with another firm and finally set up my own firm of Gopalan Nair in Colombo Court and then moved to Golden Mile Complex until I left Singapore in 1991.

16. To tell it briefly, very soon I was disappointed with the whole system. It was not what I thought. Certain selected individuals with Lee Kuan Yew connections did very well indeed. Those who did not ended up as the also ran.

17. The injustice to one man in particular made me very troubled. He was the opposition politician Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam (JB Jeyaretnam). Throughout the 1980s while I was practicing there in the island, I could see the law being repeatedly misused to persecute this man. Not one but a series of defamation law suits were commenced against him including one criminal case, where when one examines the facts there was not a single actionable defamation or crime in anything he did. But yet through these corrupt judges that Lee Kuan Yew has put in place (in fact all of them) like Lai Kew Chai, Sinnathuray and many others, Jeyaretnam is repeatedly punished, repeatedly impoverished and repeatedly bankrupted and sent to jail!

18. Under these circumstances I could not look my self in the mirror had I not done anything. I did what was the only right thing to do; I joined his political party, the Workers Party around 1984.

19. Since my joining his party I was persecuted not only by his courts but also by the people of Singapore . I suddenly found that I lost all my cases, both civil and criminal. The moment the judge realized it was me (remember there are no juries in Singapore ), he was trying very hard to do one thing, how to adjust his decision to find against my client.

20. Singapore ’s state controlled press gave headline news that I had joined the opposition Workers Party so that the people themselves could do what they have to do, that is to stay away from my law practice. Overnight my practice began to suffer, understandably. Which client in his right mind would want to hire me, when he knows that his case is as good as lost with me? At the same time, I began to lose all my friends as well.

21. Then this Lee Kuan Yew administration began their persecution against me. There were about 3 different cases.

22. In one case, I had represented a man called X, to maintain client confidentiality. He was indigent and of Eurasian descent. The facts were that he, just like the masses of Singaporeans was leasing a government owned HDB apartment. The apartment was left to him by his parents. The moneys due to the HDB remained outstanding. Being indigent he defaulted on his monthly payments. So they commenced eviction proceedings.

23. Mr. X was introduced to me by my childhood friend Bala who lives at Veerasamy Road . Mr. X is a rag and bone man who sells his wares along Rochore Canal with the others, also known as Sungei Road , Bombay 's equivalent of Thieves Market (in Hindi, Choor Bazaar).

24. In a little time, Mr. X was able to pay what owed. So naturally, this being good news, I wrote to the HDB on his behalf to stop all eviction proceedings because Mr. X will pay what was due.

25. You would not believe what I am about to say. The reply form the HDB was, it was not possible to stop the eviction proceedings because it is now too late. Since the eviction proceedings had already been started, there is nothing that can be done. My client has to be evicted anyhow.

26. Now like me, I am sure that you would find this unjust. Being a government housing agency, the HDB cannot act only on profit motives. They have a responsibility to the underprivileged; they have to have a sense of altruism and humanity. They should allow Mr. X to pay now and be allowed to keep his apartment that he had inherited from his father.

27. I wanted to tell the world about this injustice. It was during this time that Singapore ’s state controlled press had come up with a national party of sorts in the open space across from Lido cinema in Orchard Road . I am not sure but I think it was during the national Day Celebrations or New Years Day. Singaporeans dancing in the open was shown in the press with the words of Goh Chock Tong or someone else that "Singapore had the best outdoor party, the best political party, the best airport, the best sea port" and I am not sure the best what else.

28. I wrote a letter to the HDB asking whether is this what they mean by best party, best airport, best seaport, and enjoying themselves while a poor citizen of theirs is thrown out on the streets by the government housing agency. Is this what they mean when they say they care for Singaporeans?

29. As I wanted to tell the world about this injustice, I mailed this letter to the HDB also to various foreign embassies, consulates and high commissions of foreign countries in Singapore , such as the American Embassy, the British High Commission etc.

30. As threatened by the HDB, they threw my client on to the streets as well as all his belongings. I was told by Bala and subsequently by him that what the HDB did literally that, they just threw his things from his HDB flat out on the streets.

31. Very soon I received a latter from the Singapore Law Society, these very people who are now commencing these proceedings that the HDB had lodged a complaint against me for unethical conduct as a lawyer because, according to them, "I went beyond my scope of lawyering function" when I distributed my letter to the various Embassies and diplomatic posts in Singapore. Why? I did not see anything wrong with it? Do you?

31. While this proceedings were going on, or sometime in between, JB Jeyaretnam had just returned from London with good news. In his case, Law Society vs JB Jeyaretnam, the Privy Council, the Highest Court in England had found him totally innocent of any of the charges brought against him by the Singapore Law Society and that he should be restored to the Rolls of lawyers in Singapore .

32. Here is the background and my involvement in the case.

33. A while earlier, JB Jeyaretnam was charged once again, one of the many cases brought against him by this despot Lee Kuan Yew through his complaint courts. This time it was criminal charges.

34. After he was sued for defamation and was ordered to pay several hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages to Lee Kuan Yew, as is the fashion in Singapore , he put out a plea to the general public for donations.

35. He opened a Standard Chartered Account to collect these monies and I was appointed the Trustee to receive these funds.

36. A total of $14,000 or $15,000.00 was received into this account.

37. Among the donors, there were a couple of people who wanted to donate and had made out checks to the Workers Party.

38. I understand that JB Jeyaretnam had asked them to make out the check to him instead, since if the check was made out to the party, it would not benefit him since the party had already been would up by the courts.

39. You don't need to be a lawyer to know that there was nothing wrong in that. The money was the donor's. They could do anything they want with it. As they had changed the payee's names in the checks to JB Jeyaretnam, he was charged with criminal breach of trust for having diverted "funds belonging to the court liquidator to himself"!

40. Since JB Jeyaretnam knew, just as every normal human being would know that these moneys do not belong to the liquidator, he did not include these 2 sums in the sworn financial declaration he made to the courts. Mind you the sums in this case were only about $300.00.

41. As expected, Lee Kuan Yew ordered his Attorney general to charge Jeyaretnam. He was duly convicted in Singapore by Lee's obedient judges. Immediately thereafter, the Law Society under Lee's instructions disbars him.

42. Since at the time, legal profession disciplinary proceedings had an appeal available to the courts in London , which, you rightly guessed, not longer exists, JB Jeyartnam appealed to the Privy Council London.

43. In the tradition of fairness and justice the British court completely exonerated JB Jeyaretnam of all blame.

44. But what is important to note is this. The parties before the English court were the Law Society of Singapore represented by Singaporean lawyer Goh Joon Seng, from the law firm Lee and Lee (Lee Kuan Yew's law firm) and British Queen’s Counsel whose name I cannot remember. JB Jeyaretnam represented himself with British Queen's Counsel Martin Thomas.

45. Since the question of whether JB Jeyaretnam should be disciplined for his Singapore criminal convictions would depend on whether the Singapore court judgments were correct, it would be necessary for the English judges to look into the evidence once again and see whether JB Jeyaretnam was in fact guilty. Therefore since it was the Singapore Attorney General Tan Boon Teck who conducted these proceedings, the English court felt that it was necessary to permit the Singapore Attorney General to be present in the proceedings so as to both assist and respond to anything relating to the Singapore criminal charges.

46. So the English judges had asked the Singapore Law Society lawyer in the court "Is the Attorney General of Singapore aware of these proceedings" and "Does he wish to appear in these proceedings" since the criminal convictions are now in issue.

47. Both counsel for the Singapore Law Society affirmatively responded that the " Singapore Attorney General is aware and does not wish to appear". Only after being assured of this, did the court go on to hear the case. The court very quickly found JB Jeyaretnam totally innocent of all charges. And they ordered the Singapore Law Society to restore him to the Rolls of Lawyers.

48. After Jeyaretnam returned to Singapore , he applied for a "pardon" from the President of Singapore since the English court had totally exonerated him of all blame.

49. Mr. Tan Boon Teck, then the Attorney General of Singapore writes on behalf of the President of Singapore denying JB Jeyaretnam the pardon. For his reasons he says “That he (the Attorney General of Singapore) was not given an opportunity to be heard before the English Court " and secondly "JB Jeyaretnam had not shown remorse repentance and contrition for the crimes he had committed"!

50. And this outrageous response was published in full by Singapore ’s state controlled press and I read it.

51. Surely you can see what I saw. How can this Attorney General of Singapore so shamelessly say that "he was not given an opportunity to appear" before the English court, when it was absolutely clear that he knew about the case.

52. And surely you can see that Mr. Jeyaretnam is not required to show any “remorse repentance or contrition" for crimes he did not commit!

53. Naturally I was more than disappointed to read the Attorney General's complete denial of the truth. So I had to act and I did. I wrote to him to explain how in Heavens he could say that he "was not given an opportunity to appear in the English court" when he clearly was? And I asked him why in Heavens’ should Jeyaretnam show "remorse repentance and contrition" when he hadn’t committed any crime?

54. He replied by calling my letter "scurrilous" and that "if I needed any answers, I should write to Mr. Jeyaretnam since he was not a party to the proceedings”.

55. Since his response to me was completely unsatisfactory, I wrote to him again telling him that he should reply to me and answer my questions and if not I will circulate the correspondence between us to all the law firms in Singapore. His response was that he was going to report me to the Law Society for discipline, this very same organization that is now proceeding against me for unethical conduct.

56. I then sent my letter to him, his to me and my response to him to all law firms in Singapore via facsimile.

57. The charges against me were that I had "threatened the Attorney General" and that I had made "false accusations against the Attorney General". I fail to see how informing him of my intention to distribute the letters to Singapore lawyers is an "actionable threat" and secondly how asking the Attorney General questions on a public matter can amount to 'false accusations'.

58. The disciplinary hearing was conducted in camera. Very convenient for them, since no one else can know what really happened. But I do have the transcripts, thank God. The Disciplinary hearings judge was the late Choor Singh who was only interested, not unexpectedly, to please Lee Kuan Yew by finding me guilty as quickly as possible. The Law society's Counsel was Madam Assomull who was trying very hard to do any amount of dirty work for the Lee Kuan Yew administration to profit thereby and advance his career. It does appear however that all that willingness to bend over backwards to please the Singaporean powers doesn’t seem to have done him much good. Has a small cheap office now in High Street’s Peninsula Plaza Telephone: (65) 6339 4466. You might want to ask him what went wrong.

59. As expected I was disciplined. I was suspended from practice for 2 years for writing that letter to the Singapore Attorney General. But it did not really affect me, because this final judgment of suspension of a three judge High Court judgment came only after I left Singapore permanently in December 1991.

60. Then finally before I left Singapore , there was another case against me, this time for contempt of court. In 1991 I stood for the by elections as a Workers party candidate for the constituency of Bukit Merah. This was a time when JB Jeyaretnam had been bankrupted and could not stand for elections. I made a speech at an election rally there saying something on these lines "vote for the Workers Party. If you vote for us, we will change the way Subordinate Courts judges are appointed. At present the appointment of Subordinate Court judges are made by the Legal Service Commission which is headed by the Attorney General. This gives an impression of bias when it comes to cases against the government. Some may believe that the judge made the decision because he feared for his job and career. If we came to power, we would make the appointment of these judges independent of the Legal Service Commission".

61. I think, and I am sure you will too, if you happened to be a normal human being that there was nothing wrong in what I said. It was common sense to see that there could be a perception of bias in such cases.

62. I was charged this time for contempt of court. The charge stated that I had accused the Subordinate Court of bias by what I said. The judge this time was TS Sinnathuray, well known for being Lee Kuan Yew's man to polish off any contender.

63. The judge, expectedly, found me guilty as charged. He fined me $8,000.00 or if I did not pay, 2 months in jail. I paid the fine.

64. By this time I was thoroughly disillusioned by the whole system of law in Singapore . I was fed up with the judges, with the law and with the lawyers, whom, I saw as completely spineless.

65. Of course not all accepted this nonsense. Many left the country permanently mainly for Australia . The average man today in Singapore has no respect for the law. As evidence of this malaise, there are no more than 3000 or so practicing lawyers in Singapore today in an island of nearly 5 million people. There have been numerous attempts by the Singapore Administration to increase the number of lawyers by putting out numerous reports that it is an international legal center and so on. Since the world already knows how bad the situation is in Singapore as to the law, it is not surprising that that it is unable to attract more lawyers to the profession.

66. I am very sure that I will be disbarred in Singapore ; there is no doubt about it. But this in no way bothers me since I have not been practicing there since 1991, and furthermore I cannot even travel to the island as the government there has placed a restriction on my entry.

67. I am still on the Rolls of Lawyers in Singapore even though I have not practiced there since 1991. In order to practice in Singapore , you not only have to be on the Rolls of Lawyers, you have to apply for a practicing certificate every year. I am on the Rolls but have not applied for a practicing certificate since 1991. Therefore I cannot practice there at all. By this procedure to strike me off the Rolls, they are in effect denying me the right to ever apply for a practicing certificate in Singapore .

68. Since my adventure in Singapore last year, my blog Singapore Dissident has received great exposure in the world. Many Singaporeans also read it and the readership is steadily increasing.

69. I hope with my disbarment in Singapore and the publicity this generates, even more lawyers will leave Singapore in disgust and the administration will find even more difficulty in attracting new candidates to the profession. In this respect we should all do what we can to expose this dictatorship and weaken it as best we can. That way, we can lay the foundations for a democratic and free society.

Background to this case

70. I live in California , USA . I am now an American citizen. I went to Singapore on May 26, 2008 to witness the hearing to assess the quantum on damages in the Lee Kuan Yew vs Dr. Chee Soon Juan case in the Singapore High Court which was to last 3 days from May 26, 2008 to May 28, 2008. My interest to witness this hearing was increased because it was reported that Lee Kuan Yew, the Singapore strongman and his son will be testifying in open court. I arrived on an early morning flight arriving Singapore May 26, 2008, my intention being to depart Singapore on about a week thereafter on or about June 1, 2008.

After witnessing the 3 days of hearing I wrote a blog post on my blog “Singapore Dissident” from my hotel in Singapore on May 29, 2008. On May 31, 2008, in the evening, Singapore police arrested me in the lobby of the hotel because of my blog, which the police initially claimed were related to Emails to judges, which I never sent.

Since the police had ransacked my hotel room and seized my American passport, I could not leave Singapore . I managed to finally leave Singapore on Nov 26, 2008 after I was released from prison.

The complaint against me has been brought by the Singapore Law Society, which we can assume is synonymous with Lee Kuan Yew and the Singapore Government acting through their Attorney General. Unlike democracies with the rule of law, the Law Society of Singapore is not an independent body.

The lawyer representing the Law Society is a Singaporean Chinese lawyer Peter Low. A copy of this is being emailed to him.

There are 5 charges of misconduct in all. The first 2 charges deal with the accusation against me that on July 4, 2008 in the evening near Little India, I used intemperate language against some police officers and that I behaved in a disorderly manner. I was fined $2,000.00 for using intemperate language against the officers and another $1,000 for disorderly behavior. I disputed the charges. The trial last about 18 days in the Subordinate Courts. The Judge was James Leong.

The Tribunal has informed me that all communications should be sent to Angela Chopard head of this Disciplinary Tribunal as well as to her co-worker Yogeswari d/o N Vadivellu , just in case Chopard goes on leave. This is what I have been doing. The ones who would be hearing this case are 2 other people.

Chopard has asked me if I have a lawyer and I have said I have none. It would be silly of me to waste any money to engage a lawyer when I know I will be disbarred anyway. These proceedings are simply Kangaroo proceedings. It is simply a Kangaroo Court. It is a political exercise, not a legal one.

71. I had asked the Disciplinary Tribunal to let me have the transcripts of my court hearing since what has been said and recorded is crucial to my being able to defend myself in these proceedings.

73. The Disciplinary Council has refused to provide me any transcripts at all. To my request that they provide the transcripts so that I can defend myself, their answer was that "I can collect them personally free of charge from the Subordinate Court Singapore or I can send someone else on my behalf to collect them personally". I had pointed out repeatedly that I don't live in Singapore and do not have anyone there to collect them, and requested instead that they mail the transcripts to me to the USA . They have simply refused to do that.

74. Another charge deals with my writing on my blog Singapore Dissident that "Judge Belinda Ang prostituted herself in her position as a judge by being nothing more than Lee Kuan Yew's and his son's employee in the recent case of lee Kuan Yew vs Dr. Chee Soon Juan". Again I have had the same problem in this case with the transcripts. In this case I had written to them asking that they provide me with the transcripts of my hearing since I need them to defend myself in these proceedings. I also asked for the audio recording which is available in High Court hearings. Once again the High Court wrote to me telling me that I could go personally to Singapore to collect the transcripts or I could send someone else on my behalf. Again I told them that I do not have anyone in Singapore and it is impossible for me to send someone from here to Singapore just for this, therefore could they please mail me the transcripts to the USA . They have refused to mail anything to me. As for the audio recordings, they have simply refused to provide it.

75. The reader will see the difficulty that I face in responding to these charges. The transcripts of both courts and the audio recordings of the High court are crucial and absolutely necessary for me to argue in my defense. Without this, I can only do it out of memory and to that extent I am hamstrung.

76. The other problem that I have faced is this. In any proceedings of this nature, it is the duty of the court to ensure that the Defendant is apprised of the proceedings and any rules that apply. I had repeatedly told the Disciplinary Tribunal that it is their responsibility to ensure that this is done. Not surprisingly for Singapore , someone from the Tribunal who calls herself Audrey Lim writes to me stating that she will not send me anything and that any enquiry for transcripts and other matters should be sent to the High Court or Subordinate Court directly.

77. I have not been able to ascertain who she is. I have discovered someone called "Lim Yoon Cheng Audrey" works in the court but when I asked Angela Chopard who heads the Tribunal who this person is, she claims she does not know any person called Lim Choon Yeng. I have therefore ignored this Audrey Lim entirely.

78. The other charge is this. During my case in the Subordinate Court for allegedly using intemperate language to police officers on July 4, 2008, I had made some remarks such as "I have no confidence of getting a fair trial in this court". As you are aware, I was sent to jail for 3 months for accusing Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean in my blog. While I was still in jail, the Attorney general brought out more charges, this time for contempt of court. The alleged contempt was my having said things like "I don't have any belief that I will get fairness in this court" while I was in the Subordinate Court during my earlier trial. If I challenged these contempt charges, it would mean a longer prison sentence. Not wanting to stay any longer in jail, I naturally apologized and promised not to criticize the Singaporean judiciary or their courts. But since my return to the US , I naturally withdrew any apology made, since I had intention of keeping it anyway, and I re-posted certain blog posts from Singapore Dissident which I was ordered to remove while in Queenstown jail.

79. The last charge deals with my having criticized Judge Judith Prakash in my blog Singapore Dissident in the same manner that I had criticized Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean. This was done after I returned to the USA last year in 2008 December after my escapade in Singapore .

80. The trial of this disciplinary proceeding has been set for either Feb 22, 2010 to Feb 26, 2010 or March 08, 2010 to March 12, 2010 in Singapore . I have a right to appear and defend myself at trial but you can see the difficulty of this I am sure. Please note that as per your request in your letter dated Nov 4th 2009, the March dates are suitable.

81. First, I have not right to enter Singapore and they have not told me that I can. Secondly even if I am allowed to enter Singapore, I would be liable to arrest and imprisonment because I have written in my blog about Singaporean judge Judith Prakash in similar terms to what I had written about Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean while in Singapore. If what I did in Singapore was a crime, surely writing about Judge Judith Prakash is also a crime which means another 3 months jail or more for that.

82. Second, as I have gone against the court ruling in Singapore that I will not criticize the Singapore judiciary anymore and that certain blog posts in Singapore Dissident should be removed, since I have done just that, this would mean another contempt of court conviction and imprisonment.

83. I had written to the Tribunal and the Singapore Immigration and Customs Authority whether I have permission to come to Singapore to defend myself.

83. I had written to the Singapore Tribunal for an assurance that I will not be arrested if I entered Singapore because without such an assurance, it would be madness for me ever to enter Singapore . Since these proceedings are commenced by them, it is necessary that they pay for my air travel there and my reasonable accommodation and daily expenses there. Surely a Defendant such as myself is not expected to pay for this, just as you would not expect a fugitive from Singapore to pay for his return to Singapore to face trial. The Tribunal or the Singapore Immigration and Customs Authority have not responded to this at all.

85. If they don't give me permission to either enter Singapore or to guarantee that I will not be re-arrested if I enter Singapore, it would simply result in my being unable to represent myself at the Singapore hearing. How to deny me the right to defend and yet claim that that they have the rule of law is yet to be seen.

According to the Singapore Tribunal, Singapore Immigration and Customs Authority have ruled that I have to apply to enter Singapore . Since I have already done it before in my Email dated Nov 11, 2009 to which they replied stating in their Nov 13, 2009 letter stating "it is receiving attention" why are they asking me to do it again? It does not take much effort to send another short Email to them which I will do now separately and copied to the Tribunal. It will be posted in my blog Singapore Dissident.

86. In summary, the Tribunal in Singapore is refusing to provide any transcripts or audio recordings for any of these cases, evidence which is crucial for any meaningful defense on my part of these charges. They have also flatly refused to let me know whether I have permission to enter Singapore or whether I will be arrested if I returned there.

Response to Charge 1 and 2

87. The charge reads as follows: You, on July 4, 2008 at or about 10.35 pm near the junction of Bukit Timah Road and Race Course Road Singapore which is a public place did use abusive words towards certain public officials namely police officers of the Singapore Police Force in particular Senior Staff Sergeant Kang Wei Chien and Sergeant Noor Azhar Daud by showing.......... (Here follows certain expletives and four letter words).

88. The second charge refers to the same place and time and is as follows:

"You, ................... (same place and time)............. did behave in a disorderly manner to wit gesticulating with your hands and shouting loudly"

89. I pleaded not guilty and went to trial. This trial lasted 18 days in the Subordinate Court, Singapore.

90. As I do not have the transcripts which the Tribunal has refused to provide, I can only do my best based on memory and the few notes I managed to take.

91. I was walking in the evening along Race Course Road Singapore alone towards the junction of Bukit Timah Road . There were a number of cars waiting along the street to merge into Bukit Timah Road which is a main road.

92. While walking along the pavement, almost reaching Bukit Timah Road , I heard some yelling from behind, as if someone were calling out to me. Since I had no business with anyone and no obligation to look I kept on walking.

93. From behind about 5 people came in front of me. None of them were in police uniform. They were rude and they were shouting. They accused me of "knocking” on their police car. I said I did no such thing. I did not know they were policemen. They asked me to tell them who I was and where I was going. None of their business, I thought and politely asked to step aside to let me go.

94. Immediately thereafter with violent force, I was brought face down lying on the tarmac of the Road. My glasses were damaged. While on the floor I was handcuffed. There was a crowd who had gathered. I suffered injuries.

95. The police officers, in particular Staff Sergeant Kang’s evidence, had shown that it would be impossible for me to commit the offense. For instance, in the witness box, he had said that I "continuously and loudly" kept knocking on his car. If so, I had asked him why he did not arrest me there and then, to which he had no answer.

Further since he confirmed that I had knocked his police car “continuously and loudly”, I had asked him how long was it? 1 minute, 2 minutes, 10 minutes, 5 seconds, what? Despite my repeatedly asking it, he did not answer. I had asked the judge to compel him to answer the question but he refused.

If I had in fact “continuoulsy and loudly” knocked on his car, he would have noticed and arrested me immediately. Yet he did nothing but according to him, allowed me to walk away 100 0r 200 meters before he calls out to me!

This is simply nonsense.

96. I had asked him repeatedly if he had seen me knocking on his car to which he answered no.

97. I had asked him when he began to call out to me to stop, to which he answered after I had walked about 100 to 200 meters straight ahead from his car. Yet under cross examination, he stated his car was the first car at the traffic junction. In fact if what he said was true, had I walked 100 or 200 meters from his car, when it was at the street junction, I would have been smack in the middle of the Bukit Timah Road , the Main Road or even beyond that.

98. Not one of the police officers at the trial gave any testimony alleging that they saw me "knocking continuously and loudly" on their police car.

There was no evidence that anyone identified themselves as police officers and they did not show me any badges either.

99. The police took my blood for alcohol testing which confirmed that I was not alcohol impaired.

100. The police sent the car to forensics to see if there were any fingerprints and there was none.

101. The police confirmed that there was no damage to their car.

102. Yet they all said that I went on to hurl obscenities at them and behaved in a disorderly manner.

103. Each and every police officer present at trial religiously repeated under oath that I was disorderly, that I had yelled expletives at them and so on. The next day, Singapore ’s state controlled newspaper the Straits Times reported that as many as 25members of the public witnessed my arrest.

104. Other than the 5 police officers there or so, who gave evidence, giving the same identical evidence that the others gave, not a single independent witness was produced despite the fact that their own newspaper reported there were at least 25 bystanders who witnessed my arrest.

105. When I asked the Investigating Officer why he did not call any independent witnesses to testify, his answer was that at that time, even though there were 5 of them with me alone and unarmed, he was controlling the flow of traffic and could not get the particulars of any independent person. He said he did go there the next day to ask the nearby shopkeepers but no one wanted to help him.

106. The principle in criminal law is the burden is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. This was a case that simply had too many doubts, too many inconsistencies.

107. There is no reason why I should have done any of what they said I did and secondly, even if I yelled or shouted, which I must say did not happen at all, it is something that happens every day and if there were prosecutions for this sort of thing, there won't be left anyone outside prison.

108. Under these circumstances, one can only reasonably come to this conclusion. They were looking out for me. It was necessary to make me look bad in Singapore prior to my trial in the High Court for the blogging case which was set for September 2008, for which I was already arrested and released on bail.

109. I think the mistake they made is to not coach their police witnesses to lie properly. Perhaps they also thought it was going top be a breeze with my pleading guilty the first day and the case over. Unfortunately this did not happen and I went to trial.

110. I have some notes that I had taken during the trial. As for their refusal to send me any court transcripts to enable me to know what was exactly said in court, they are obviously trying their best to make it difficult for me to defend these charges.

111. There were a few moments of hilarity during the proceedings. When I told Staff Sergeant Kang that what he was saying was "a figment of his imagination" he asked the judge “what is a figment"! As for the photographer who testified as best he could in English, he did not know what "junction" meant in English. He almost did not know any English at all. Chinese educated old man.

Then we had Vikneswaran son of Socklingam, the Investigating Officer. He kept saying his name was S Vicki. Imagine someone going around at trial and giving a false name. Only under cross examination did I discover what his real name was. This was not just with this man, the Judge James Leong also had an entirely different name as well as the prosecutor who was adamant to remain incognito as Peter Koy when in fact he was Koy Su Hua.

The entire James Leong's Court was trying to hide their true identities as common criminals. At one point, I told the judge that if that was the case, if we could all go around calling ourselves something else, why not call me "Gordon" instead of "Gopalan". Although this request was made in jest as I am proud of Gopalan Nair the judge simply refused the request although this police officer can freely go around under false pretenses!

112. And finally in no country in the civilized world would any lawyer be disciplined with disbarment even if he did what was alleged he did.

Charge no. 3

113. You, in your blog post Singapore Dissident dated May 29, 2008 entitled “ Singapore . Judge Belinda Ang's Kangaroo Court", did make the following offending statement insulting the judiciary of Singapore , namely the Honorable Judge Belinda Ang (Saw Ean): "The judge Belinda Ang was throughout prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders."

And you had thereby committed an offense punishable under Section 228 of the Penal Code for which on Sept 17, 2008, you were convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment ....................".

114. There are a number of difficulties with this accusation.

115. Section 228 of the Penal Code reads as follows: "Whoever intentionally offers any insult or cause any interruption to any public servant while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to $5,000.00 or with both".

116. Any normal reading of this section would require the following elements. One, the Defendant should either insult or interrupt a judge. Two, this has to be done in the presence of the judge. Three, it has to be done while physically in the court while the judge is sitting in judicial proceedings.

117. I did not insult Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean in her court. I wrote a blog in my hotel in Singapore .

118. Since my action was not in her court in her presence and neither did I interrupt her proceedings, there is no way I can be liable in this section.

119. Furthermore, the case was no longer in session. I wrote the blog on May 29, 2009when the case was already over. On May 28, 2008 Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean adjourned her court. On May 29 2008 she was "no longer sitting in proceedings". She promised to deliver her judgment on the amount of damages some time at a future date. Therefore it could not be said by any stretch that "she was sitting in proceedings" when I wrote my blog on May 29, 2008 in my hotel in Singapore .

120. The other issue is with the word “insult”. The Constitution of Singapore guarantees free speech and expression. Therefore it was perfectly all right to write my blog criticizing this judge.

121. The other point was the words "prostituting her self during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders." I had said specifically clearly that the word "prostituting" was said in relation to her “duty as a judge”. Not as a common prostitute.

122. The meaning of the word "prostituting" in the Webster’s Dictionary is as follows: "to devote to corrupt or unworthy purposes; debase one's talents; devoted to corrupt purposes; a person, such as a writer or painter, who deliberately debases himself or his talents for money". If you read my blog post of May 29, 2008 in Singapore Dissident, this is exactly what this judge was doing shamelessly throughout the 3 days of hearing in the High Court Singapore. This is a correct use of the English Language as to her conduct and therefore can in no way amount to criminal conduct. Please read my blog post of May 29, 2008 in the blog Singapore Dissident.

123. Criminal offense of "insult". Apart from the fact that the Singapore Penal section requires to the insult to happen within the presence of a judge in a courtroom, which was not the case, the "insult" law is itself unconstitutional and void. Under the 1st and 14th Amendment of the US Constitution as well as established English constitutional law, laws which are vague and overbroad are unconstitutional. It is like saying; it is illegal to be "bad". What this means is anyone’s guess. So is the word "insult". The law itself for this reason too is unenforceable.

124. None of this argument flew with Judge Kang Ting Chiu in my trial in the High Court. He said, it was not necessary to be in court for this offense; that the judge was still sitting in proceedings even though she was not in court at all and neither was I when I wrote the blog; that I meant the judge was engaged in "prostitution" even though this was never the meaning; that even though what I said was true, it could still be an insult; never mind any dictionary meanings, I was guilty anyway.

125. Judge Kang Ting Chiu's trial was like that in Alice in Wonderland of the trial of the rabbit who stole the tart!

126. The Tribunal and the Singapore High Court has refused to provide the transcripts or the audio recordings. To that extent this is written from memory.

Charge No: 4

127. "You, did make the following entry in your blog Singapore Dissident on November 28, 2008 entitled "Hello from Fremont, near San Francisco California" "I am defying the undertaking that I gave in court (in Singapore) on September 12, 2008 when I admitted being in contempt of court.........I had also given an undertaking to remove the 2 blog posts of Sept 1, 2008 and Sept 6, 2008 which referred to my trial and conviction before Judge James Leong in the Subordinate Court for disorderly behavior and insulting a policeman, charges entirely made up by the (Singapore) police to discredit me. I will be re-posting those 2 blog posts and stand by every word that I had written in them" and by reason of this you have committed misconduct.

128. On September 12, 2008 I was in prison in Singapore ’s Queenstown jail having been unjustly without law serving a sentence of 3 months jail. On September 20, 2008 I was supposed to be released from jail.

129. At this point, while in jail, the Singapore Police visited me in jail with fresh charges this time of contempt of court for what I had earlier said in Judge James Leong's Subordinate Court . So when I was now taken again to the Subordinate court again to face these new charges, in return for apologizing and undertaking to remove the 2 blog posts, I was given a warning not to criticize Singapore ’s judges again and not to write blog posts criticizing the Singapore judiciary. At this point you realize, I was just about to be released from prison.

130. This undertaking was made against my constitutional right of free speech and expression. Furthermore Judge Leong nor the new judge Leslie Chew of the Subordinate Court on these new fresh charges, were not conducting normal court in the usual sense. These were Kangaroo court for punishing political dissidents for the pleasure of his master, Lee Kuan Yew.

131. The only reason why I gave the undertaking was not to prolong my incarceration in a Singapore jail. I would have said anything in the world just so that my jail term is not extended. I had not intention of keeping my undertaking to that court at all. At the first opportunity of arriving in the US , I broke that undertaking. I withdrew all apologies made and reposted on my blog Singapore Dissident, those blog posts there were ordered to be deleted.

Charge No 5

132. This charge is similar to the Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean charge. “You, in your blog post Singapore Dissident dated Nov 30, 2008 entitled “Justice Judith Prakash. Another Kangaroo Judge", did make the following offending statement insulting the judiciary of Singapore namely the "Honorable" Justice Judith Prakash: "Judge Judith Prakash of the Supreme Court Singapore has prostituted herself in her capacity as a judge hearing the Kangaroo T Shirt case on Nov 24, 2008 by being nothing more than an employee of Lee Kuan Yew and his son, whom he appointed Prime Minister. By her actions in sending these young men to prison and making them pay crippling court costs of $5,000.00 each, she has shamelessly disgraced herself, her office as a judge, disgraced the Constitution of Singapore and Singapore ."

133. This blog post was written by me after my return to California .

134. The facts were that John Tan, the Assistant Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party (Dr. Chee Soon Juan's party), Izrizal and Shafi (2 other members of the said party) were arrested in the High Court between the dates of May 26 to May 28, 2008 wearing T shirts emblazoned with the picture of a Kangaroo in judicial robes.

135. The intention was for them to attend the hearing in Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean's court while the Lee Kuan Yew case was being heard to give solidarity to Dr. Chee Soon Juan.

136. The police outside her courtroom did not permit them to enter her court. They were arrested outside her court.

137. They were charged for contempt of court.

138. They were clearly not guilty for the following reasons. There is nothing contemptuous of wearing a T shirt with a picture of a kangaroo in judicial robes. They are protected by the Constitutional right of free speech. They were not within the court of Judge Ang Saw Ean. Third, for contempt, the action must be clearly contemptuous, and not open to multiple interpretations. Here merely wearing a T shirt with a Kangaroo's picture is open to multiple interpretations, not necessarily any insult to this particular judge.

Another important point is this. For a contempt case such as this the item itself is the only evidence admissible, in this case the T Shirts. No evidence of intention or otherwise of the user is admissible since they had not said anything.

The police officer in this case was Assistant Superintendant Abdul Razak Zakaria, the same man that arrested me in the Belinda Ang Saw Ean case. He took various statements from the Defendants in stressful circumstances and adduced them in court to prove their intent. This was completely unacceptable. And this judge willingly let her court be misused in this way.

I was seated in the Singapore court for the first 2 days. It was a shameful spectacle. A disgrace. What was going on there was a Stalinist show trial. Not a court one would expect in any democracy.

A lot of time was spent in court by this police officer adducing evidence from statements taken from the 3, to show the intent of the wearers of the Kangaroo T shirt for this shameless judge to join in and say that they intended to insult the court and so on and so forth and therefore they are guilty.

Granted, these judges are well paid in Lee Kuan Yew’s courts, but surely this woman can find a more honest way to make a living.

139. The judge Judith Prakash was shamelessly abusing her position to silence dissent. This she does by sending these men to jail and making them pay costs of $5,000.00. More than just punishing these 3 men, the purpose is to send a chill down the spines of every Singaporean not to criticize Lee Kuan Yew or his judges.

140. The words used by me were apt and correct. It is not misconduct at all.

Conclusion

141. In a sense, it is good that the Singapore Law Society has commenced these proceedings and they will undoubtedly have me disbarred.

142. With the Internet now, I am being tried not just by the Singapore authorities; I am also being tried by the world. It gives me another chance to expose the real goings on in the legal system of that island, a chance which did not exist before.

143. In times before, with the press being controlled in Singapore , it was impossible for the public to know the truth. Now their actions are seen for what they are, and they have to live by their actions.

144. I understand today, the Singapore authorities are struggling to increase the number of lawyers practicing there. In fact for that island of 5 million people or so, with international trade and commerce, there are no more than 3,000 lawyers or so, a totally insufficient number.

145. The reason for this must be obvious. The Singapore legal system and their judges have been so much discredited over these years that all respect for their judiciary or the rule of law is gone. In the past the late JB Jeyaretnam suffered almost decades at the hands of corrupt Singapore judges who were carrying out Lee Kuan Yew's political orders to repeatedly bankrupt and impoverish him and send him to jail. They finally killed him, in a manner of speaking.

146. The same fact befell anyone who dared criticize Lee Kuan Yew or his courts, such as Tang Liang Hong, now in exile in Australia, bankrupt; Francis Seow detained and beaten and now in exile in Boston; Dr. Lee Seow Choh, Jufrie Mohammad, and of course Dr. Chee Soon Juan and not forgetting myself.

147. I take great credit for the fact there are only 3,000 lawyers in Singapore . My writings have obviously had a part to play in that. My message to Singaporeans is this. Don't stop. This dictatorship is weakening. And I shall continue to write.

148. Best Wishes from Fremont California

149. Executed Under Penalty of Perjury by me, Gopalan Nair, in Fremont California USA on November 30, 2009.

Followers

About Me

Determined to find the Truth.
Born Singapore, educated Winstedt School 2 (next to Monks Hill in Newton, Singapore) Raffles Institution, National Service, some travel in Europe, then law studies England, return to Singapore, practiced for 10 years, active Workers Party member, stood elections 1988 and 1991 in Singapore, was harassed and persecuted by Lee Kuan Yew for my political beliefs, left for USA, obtained asylum and admitted California State Bar, practice law ever since in Fremont California near San Francisco. Relinquished Singapore citizenship 2005 because I was not prepared to permit Lee Kuan Yew to unjustly retain my CPF funds if I remained Singapore Citizen. On principle, the only correct thing for me to do was to give it up, for my CPF funds. I am an American Citizen as of 2004.